A. All contracts and agreements in violation of Section 57-1-1 or 57-1-2 NMSA 1978 shall be void, and any person threatened with injury or injured in his business or property, directly or indirectly, by a violation of Section 57-1-1 or 57-1-2 NMSA 1978 may bring an action for appropriate injunctive relief, up to threefold the damages sustained and costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. If the trier of fact finds that the facts so justify, damages may be awarded in an amount less than that requested, but not less than the damages actually sustained.
B. The attorney general may bring an action under Subsection A of this section on behalf of the state, a political subdivision thereof or any public agency.
C. In any action under this section, any defendant, as a partial or complete defense against a damage claim, may, in order to avoid duplicative liability, be entitled to prove that the plaintiff purchaser or seller in the chain of manufacture, production, or distribution who paid any overcharge or received any underpayment, passed on all or any part of such overcharge or underpayment to another purchaser or seller in such chain.
D. For the purposes of this section, "business or property" includes business or nonbusiness purchases and business and nonbusiness injuries.
History: Laws 1891, ch. 10, § 3; C.L. 1897, § 1294; Laws 1907, ch. 18, § 1; Code 1915, § 1687; C.S. 1929, § 35-2903; 1941 Comp., § 51-1103; 1953 Comp., § 49-1-3; Laws 1979, ch. 374, § 5.
ANNOTATIONSCompiler's notes. — The cases annotated under 57-1-1 NMSA 1978 are also applicable to this section.
Standing. — Plaintiff alleged that defendant forced merchants who accepted defendants' credit cards to also accept defendant's debit cards which resulted in higher debit processing fees for merchants who were forced to pass the cost on to their customers in the form of higher prices for retail goods; plaintiff sought class certification on behalf of New Mexico consumers; plaintiff was not a consumer or a competitor in the market for credit and debit card services provided by defendants; plaintiff's allegations did not show that plaintiff was directly harmed by the actions of defendants or that plaintiff was indirectly harmed through the chain of distribution of the debit card services; plaintiff was a consumer of goods sold by merchants who happened to be part of the affected market; the merchants who were directly affected by the alleged tying arrangement and who were a better plaintiff had participated in litigation against defendants under federal antitrust laws; plaintiff's damages were speculative because the charges paid by plaintiff on retail items were based on numerous independent factors other than the fees charged by defendants; apportioning damages among class members would be a complex task; and there was a risk of duplicative damages that were paid in prior federal antitrust litigation based on the same issue, plaintiff lacked standing to bring a claim against defendants under the New Mexico Antitrust Act for the alleged tying scheme that forced merchants to accept defendants' debit cards at inflated transaction-fee rates. Nass-Romero v. Visa USA, Inc., 2012-NMCA-058, 279 P.3d 772.
Transfer of counterclaim sharing factual questions with other action. — Where an antitrust counterclaim and actions already pending in another district share numerous complex factual questions, transfer of the antitrust counterclaim is necessary to prevent duplicate discovery, eliminate any possibility of conflicting pretrial rulings and conserve time and effort for the parties, the witnesses and the judiciary. In re Uranium Indus. Antitrust Litigation, 466 F. Supp. 958 (D.N.M. 1979).
Both public and private actions contemplated. — The antitrust laws of this state and nation contemplate both public and private actions against those who may have violated them. United Nuclear Corp. v. General Atomic Co., 1980-NMSC-094, 96 N.M. 155, 629 P.2d 231, appeal dismissed, 451 U.S. 901, 101 S. Ct. 1966, 68 L. Ed. 2d 289 (1981).
Arbitration inappropriate for antitrust claims. — The public interest in the enforcement of antitrust laws makes antitrust claims inappropriate subjects for arbitration. United Nuclear Corp. v. General Atomic Co., 1979-NMSC-036, 93 N.M. 105, 597 P.2d 290, cert. denied, 444 U.S. 911, 100 S. Ct. 222, 62 L. Ed. 2d 145.
Most effective relief is declaring contract void. — Because the New Mexico Antitrust Act does not provide for treble damages as available to federal litigants, the ability to have a contract declared void is the most effective tool provided by New Mexico law. United Nuclear Corp. v. General Atomic Co., 1980-NMSC-094, 96 N.M. 155, 629 P.2d 231, appeal dismissed, 451 U.S. 901, 101 S. Ct. 1966, 68 L. Ed. 2d 289 (1981).
Arbitration agreements in void contract unenforced. — The Federal Arbitration Act does not require enforcement of arbitration agreements contained in contracts which are themselves void by operation of a state law which applies to contracts generally. United Nuclear Corp. v. General Atomic Co., 1979-NMSC-036, 93 N.M. 105, 597 P.2d 290, cert. denied, 444 U.S. 911, 100 S. Ct. 222, 62 L. Ed. 2d 145.
Law reviews. — For article, "New Mexico Restraint of Trade Statutes - A Legislative Proposal," see 9 N.M.L. Rev. 1 (1978-79).
For article, "New Mexico Antitrust Law," see 9 N.M.L. Rev. 339 (1979).
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Right of one not a party to a combination or contract in restraint of trade, to maintain suit to enjoin same or to recover damages he suffers by reason thereof, 92 A.L.R. 185.
Stockholder's action as remedy to recover damages for violation of antitrust laws, 36 A.L.R.2d 1345.
Validity of contract between public utilities, other than carriers, dividing territory and customers, 70 A.L.R.2d 1326.
Propriety, under state law, of manufacturer's or supplier's refusal to sell medical product to individual physician, hospital, or clinic, 45 A.L.R.4th 1006.
Divestiture as available relief under § 16 of Clayton Act (15 U.S.C.S. § 26) in actions by private parties, 77 A.L.R. Fed. 509.
Standing of private party under § 16 of Clayton Act (15 U.S.C.S. § 26) to seek injunction to prevent merger or acquisition allegedly prohibited under § 7 of the act (15 U.S.C.S. § 18), 78 A.L.R. Fed. 159.
Propriety of preliminary injunctive relief in private antitrust actions involving dealership terminations, 79 A.L.R. Fed. 44.
58 C.J.S. Monopolies §§ 80 et seq.